4.5 Article

Complex trait relationships between leaves and absorptive roots: Coordination in tissue N concentration but divergence in morphology

Journal

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages 2697-2705

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2895

Keywords

above- and belowground linkage; absorptive roots; leaves; morphological trait; N concentration

Funding

  1. National Key Research Project of China [2016YFC0500202]
  2. Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [31290221]
  3. Doctoral Start-up Fund of Northwest AF University [Z109021625]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Leaves and absorptive roots (i.e., first-order root) are above- and belowground plant organs related to resource acquisition; however, it is controversy over whether these two sets of functional traits vary in a coordinated manner. Here, we examined the relationships between analogous above- and belowground traits, including chemical (tissue C and N concentrations) and morphological traits (thickness and diameter, specific leaf area and root length, and tissue density) of 154 species sampling from eight subtropical and temperate forests. Our results showed that N concentrations of leaves and absorptive roots were positively correlated independent of phylogeny and plant growth forms, whereas morphological traits between above- and belowground organs varied independently. These results indicate that, different from plant economics spectrum theory, there is a complex integration of diverse adaptive strategies of plant species to above- and belowground environments, with convergent adaptation in nutrient traits but divergence in morphological traits across plant organs. Our results offer a new perspective for understanding the resource capture strategies of plants in adaptation to heterogeneous environments, and stress the importance of phylogenetic consideration in the discussion of cross-species trait relationships.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available